Pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges

[Cormac]

A fifteen year old coke head gets knocked up, and people still think my eugenics views are "evil"
Surely she would be a good candidate for sterilization

A fifteen year old has lots of opportunity to turn her life around. subjecting her to an invasive and irreversible procedure for being young and stupid is over the top stupid itself. We know nothing of her background or her vulnerabilities.

What is the risk of fetal death, injury from cocaine; anybody know?

Cocaine crosses the placenta rapidly by diffusion due to its lipophilic properties, which gives
rise to increased plasma concentrations in the fetus (Farrar et al., 1989; Dempsey et al., 1998;
Dempsey et al., 1999). Post-partum the neonate may develop an NAS. The symptoms of NAS
resulting from prenatal cocaine abuse by the pregnant woman are: irritabilit#y, lethargy,
increased appetite, yawning, sneezing, higher sleep requirement, foetal tachycardia and
hypertension.

(World Health Organisation)

http://archives.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Note ... natal.html

It would seem that the impact of cocaine abuse during pregnancy on the foetus is not as severe as that of heroin, tobacco, or alcohol.

[Cormac]

On the other hand, my wife was a midwife in the past. She delivered hundreds of babies, and her hospital was in an area with a heroin problem.

Many women came in addicted to heroin, and who took the drug all the way through the pregnancy, knowing that the baby would be both damaged and addicted to smack at birth. These children were then sent home with these women, and it is known that in many cases, the babies would be given drugs. This is because the babies suffer withdrawal symptoms, and cry a lot. To quieten them, the mothers give them heroin/methadone.

My wife also saw many women who drank heavily during their pregnancy (to the extent that having arrived drunk to check into the hospital, they'd try to either sneak in drink, or they'd try to go to the pub. Their drinking was reckless to the damage they most probably did to their babies in the womb. Foetal alcohol syndrome is not very nice.

Apart from this, many many pregnant women still smoke. It is widely known that smoking during pregnancy harms the baby.

In these cases, where damage arises to the baby, is the woman to be utterly blameless? Why is this different to them, for example, causing damage to a baby by putting methadone in their formula?

If they are so addicted to drugs, surely then, they should either avoid pregnancy or kick the habit for 9 months.

Unfortunately, people who are addicted to drugs or are heavy drinkers also tend to make other bad decisions, like having unprotected sex. Especially if said people are also teenagers (see Gallstones' comment re- young and stupid.)

I'd guess many, if not most of these people, got pregnant unintentionally, and were too poor/strung out to do anything about it.

I'm not sure how to get these women to use contraception, and yeah, I have a problem with women who pursue behaviors that harm a fetus when they're carrying that fetus to term-- even though I'm pro-choice. But I don't understand how convicting a coke-head girl of murder is at all addressing the problem.

Even if you regard the fetus as a person, I don't see how the girl is guilty of more than criminal negligence.

And I am worried about the sort of precedent this might set for women who do unhealthy things before they know they're pregnant, then clean up their act, but still have a child with health problems, or a stillbirth.

The problems here are drug abuse and risky sexual behaviors. They are separate problems, though they become intertwined in cases like these. The solution seems to me to be educational outreach and access to contraception/reproductive health services. As I recall, Planned Parenthood has only one office in the entire state of Mississippi-- and that's a stat from several years ago-- it may since have closed. Mississippians as a whole don't seem to be all that interested in encouraging sexual education or pregnancy prevention. And throwing a girl in jail for having a miscarriage, even if she may have caused it by her behaviors (do we know that's why she miscarried?) seems like a vengeful slamming shut of the barn door after the horse is long gone.

I think that this case is an example of a law poorly applied.

We should separate the concept of such a law from this case, if we are to actually discuss the pros and cons of that kind of law properly.

For my two cents:

1. I think such a law is probably wrong-headed anyway
2. I think education and support is probably a better way all round - however, governments have to really raise their game in this regard.

This does not mean that I don't abhor people who, in full knowledge of the dangers, go ahead anyway.

(Women in Ireland and the UK, and most of the EU for that matter, will have no issues regarding the cost of healthcare - as we have free healthcare for all).

[Warren Dew]

Are you saying that for harm to have occurred, the mother would have had to have carried the damaged foetus to full term, then given birth

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Can you tell me at what stage during the pregnancy, the foetus acquires a right not to be damaged by heroin, alcohol, or tobacco? Does it ever? Why not?

The right not to have been damaged starts at birth. The reason is because it's at that point that a legal person exists.

Note that I'm in complete agreement with you regarding all the damage these things do to a fetus. I just think the remedy should be different: only after a baby has been born should the mother be arrested and prosecuted for the abuse.

That way, alcoholics who only belatedly find out they are pregnant, for example, will have the option to have an abortion, thus preventing a case of an actual human being with fetal alcohol syndrome.

The approach being taken in the article cited in the original post only helps in cases where nobody actually gets fetal alcohol syndrome, or the equivalent for cocaine; it does nothing to address the babies that are actually born with the defects, despite the fact that it is those defects which afflice real human beings and are the real problem.

[hadespussercats]

There are a lot of women who miscarry or have stillbirths, who are not engaged knowingly in harmful behaviors to their fetus. Sometimes bad things happen, just by nature. And some people take medications on the advice of medical personnel that turn out to be harmful. Sometimes, medical personnel or mothers may even make cost-benefit gambles when the health needs of the mother conflict with those of her fetus.

What happens to these women if laws like this become accepted and commonplace? Will women grieving their lost pregnancies be forced to suffer inquests into their lifestyles while pregnant, account for the food they ate, they exercise they did or did not take? Confess they ate cold cut meats while pregnant, or had sushi? Admit they were afraid to stop taking their anti-depressants, in fear of suffering pregnancy- or post-partum depression? Confront acquaintances who remember seeing them on that last party bender, when they were only two weeks along and didn't know they were taking a risk?

[Cormac]

Are you saying that for harm to have occurred, the mother would have had to have carried the damaged foetus to full term, then given birth

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Can you tell me at what stage during the pregnancy, the foetus acquires a right not to be damaged by heroin, alcohol, or tobacco? Does it ever? Why not?

The right not to have been damaged starts at birth. The reason is because it's at that point that a legal person exists.

Note that I'm in complete agreement with you regarding all the damage these things do to a fetus. I just think the remedy should be different: only after a baby has been born should the mother be arrested and prosecuted for the abuse.

That way, alcoholics who only belatedly find out they are pregnant, for example, will have the option to have an abortion, thus preventing a case of an actual human being with fetal alcohol syndrome.

The approach being taken in the article cited in the original post only helps in cases where nobody actually gets fetal alcohol syndrome, or the equivalent for cocaine; it does nothing to address the babies that are actually born with the defects, despite the fact that it is those defects which afflice real human beings and are the real problem.

Generally agreed.

(Although, I am not pro-abortion).

[Cormac]

There are a lot of women who miscarry or have stillbirths, who are not engaged knowingly in harmful behaviors to their fetus. Sometimes bad things happen, just by nature. And some people take medications on the advice of medical personnel that turn out to be harmful. Sometimes, medical personnel or mothers may even make cost-benefit gambles when the health needs of the mother conflict with those of her fetus.

What happens to these women if laws like this become accepted and commonplace? Will women grieving their lost pregnancies be forced to suffer inquests into their lifestyles while pregnant, account for the food they ate, they exercise they did or did not take? Confess they ate cold cut meats while pregnant, or had sushi? Admit they were afraid to stop taking their anti-depressants, in fear of suffering pregnancy- or post-partum depression? Confront acquaintances who remember seeing them on that last party bender, when they were only two weeks along and didn't know they were taking a risk?

A bit of muddying the waters here: Edit: I take this bit back.

1. Stillbirths and miscarriages happen all the time. I'm fairly sure that 4 out of 5 conceptions fail to implant. Clearly, these wouldn't be the target of such a law - that would be completely irrational and inhumane).
2. Medication and medical treatment through pregnancy always involves a cost-benefit based decision. Health of mother V health of baby is a perfectly rational basis on which to make such a decision. Where it is a medical necessity, there is no issue at all.
3. How such a law would be applied is a key issue - all the things you point out could easily become the modus operandi - and that is one of many reasons why such a law should not be passed.

As I said above - the issues should be addressed by education, and better public health policies.

Also, Universal Healthcare is, in my view, a critical aspect of modern democratic society. There should be no question of any human being finding themselves without access to proper medical care.